Kaj_Sotala comments on The Twin Webs of Knowledge - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 28 August 2009 09:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (72)
Tags: merelyreal metaphor reductionism

Comments (72)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 August 2009 08:19:33PM 1 point [-]

Hum. Plenty of people have apparently had the time to read this, but the post itself appears to remain at zero karma. I'm curious: is that because it's getting an equal amount of up- and downvotes, or did genuinely nobody consider the post any good?

As far as my more poetic sort of writing goes, I thought this if not good then at least adequate, and am a bit puzzled of the lackluster reaction it seems to be getting.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 August 2009 08:21:45PM *  1 point [-]

When I read this, I wanted to say something about porn, but shied away.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 August 2009 08:54:39PM *  0 points [-]

True, though... it was intended to be a way to sell rationalism and science to those who aren't already rationalists (as well as enforcing the rationalism of those not so certain about it), so being pornish was kinda part of the design spec. Though looking at it that way, I can understand that it might evoke negative reactions because of that.

Comment author: orthonormal 30 August 2009 07:27:27PM 0 points [-]

I voted neither up nor down, because I feel it takes too long to describe a fairly simple analogy; stretching out a poetic piece in this way gives the impression of a sermon. Two paragraphs, in the context of another substantive post, would have worked better for me, and I suspect it would have worked better for new readers as well.

I know it's difficult to be simultaneously poetic and concise, but it's generally worth the extra effort.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 30 August 2009 08:38:37PM 1 point [-]

Thank you, that's valuable advice. (Funnily enough, I originally thought that one of the problems may had been in the fact that it was too short to make an impact.)

So in your opinion, it'd have been better if it'd been something like this:

Imagine a graph showing the flow of information from people and events to you. You are at the center of it, surrounded by the brightly glowing information sources you're in direct contact with. They are surrounded by others, each progressive step making them glow less brightly, until finally they're only barely visible against the dark background. Now overlay that graph against maps showing all that is known in the sciences and the arts, and the glow of each node will push back the darkness in that field and reveal to you what is known there.

That network is mirrored by another, the network of the things you know. For as long as you don't forget the things you've learnt, you will retain some connections to the nodes you learnt them from, and of the landscapes around those. As time passes you'll retain the memory of what those landscapes were once like, though if you don't revisit them, not necessarily the way they are now. Below the highly advanced maps of the sciences and the arts are the more basic maps of all the things you mastered as a child. Those are the ones you originally branched out from, and as you expand your currently existing maps, you will branch out to many more still.

...hum. It still needs some work, but you are right - it does seem better.

Comment author: SforSingularity 30 August 2009 07:05:15PM *  0 points [-]

I voted it down. Sorry ;-0

EDIT: I like most of your posts, so I guess I hold you to a somewhat higher than average standard.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 30 August 2009 08:39:55PM 0 points [-]

That's okay - anything in particular that made you vote it down? Just the thing about finding out about your own nature, or something else as well?

Comment author: SforSingularity 30 August 2009 08:52:34PM 2 points [-]

I found the post sounded a little bit too wooly/new age.

Comment author: gwern 29 August 2009 01:43:56PM 0 points [-]

I thought it was adequate. I think I've seen better appeals to intuitions, though, like Indra's net:

"Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the 1st magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select 1 of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this 1 jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring."

The original Hindu descriptions of Indra's net are even better but I don't have on hand.

Comment author: AndyWood 28 August 2009 08:42:49PM 0 points [-]

I thought it was wonderful, and voted it up. I think often about the interplay between the internal and external world, and the expansion of consciousness that occurs as one's knowledge grows year-over-year. I find it helpful for understanding, and yes, appreciating, reality. This post added something to my internal picture of it all.

Unfortunately, I only have one vote to give.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 August 2009 08:50:50PM 0 points [-]

Okay, glad to hear that at least somebody liked it. Thanks, you saved my day. :)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit